Let’s not forget that when a ranger is in Waterdeep proper they still have proficiency in nature and survival. Assuming they even took those. See, a ranger gains expertise in a favored terrain only IF they have the proficiency first. For me, the expertise is icing on the cake only. It’s the travel part of the ability that is the meat and potatoes of the ability. If you aren’t using overland travel in your game, hex map or whatever, the natural explorer probably seems like ribbon abilities with a couple of expertise that you only have some of the time. Moving on a hex grid is amazing with natural explorer. It saves lots of time and trouble. If we read the DMG for exploration DCs we’ll find that a decent ability score and proficiency is more than enough for just about anything, tracking, navigation, foraging, etc. Expertise is nice mathematically, but it’s overkill like 90% of the time. Only the toughest checks under the harshest conditions in the harshest terrains would require anything like expertise, and guess what? Those should be the terrains the ranger is taking.
Ok first of all yes urban needs some definition but while some standard terrains like Envoy’s port city campaign can be played without problems his king’s assassin might have done better with an urban terrain than three non-urban terrains, or not.
I am assuming you are refering to the rangers aprentice series. I must say I started reading it after you recomended and enjoy the series.
..........but my library has been slow due to holds so I am not at the kings assasin yet.so I cant speak to how it mechanically relates to 5e builds.
No, I believe Envoy was asking about one of the rangers he played in a game being an assassin for king and country. What rangers apprentice series of books did I recommend now I’m lost 😳
At this point in video game D&D 5.5 world we should just give rangers expertise in nature and survival and walk away. That way everyone is equally upset.
Ok first of all yes urban needs some definition but while some standard terrains like Envoy’s port city campaign can be played without problems his king’s assassin might have done better with an urban terrain than three non-urban terrains, or not.
I am assuming you are refering to the rangers aprentice series. I must say I started reading it after you recomended and enjoy the series.
..........but my library has been slow due to holds so I am not at the kings assasin yet.so I cant speak to how it mechanically relates to 5e builds.
No, I believe Envoy was asking about one of the rangers he played in a game being an assassin for king and country. What rangers apprentice series of books did I recommend now I’m lost 😳
must have been thinking of someone else. also i thought a later book was called kings assasin.
Many of the ranger issue people are listing are kind of linked to some of the base mechanics of the game (most of which are in place for balance, but seem to be extra restrictive to Ranger as noted before a class that seemed to get less development time than the rest within those subsystems), maybe post level 9 or so there could be the introduction of an additional concentration "slot" only usable for ranger spells (to combat the issue people have with concentration-less spells being poached by dips/magical secrets) and maybe the add an additional bonus action (probably with the caveat of adding once per turn to spells like swift quiver).
Can you please elaborate on this?
Across multiple threads and forum many of the complaint I see commonly with ranger is that the class is has it's action economy painfully depended on the bonus action along side many (32 of roughly 59) spells also use concentration, I could also see the general lack of consistently useful reaction outside of level 15 subclass abilities. 5e controls a lot of the power of magical effect by the only one concentration spell/caster. I would argue that many of the spells that are on the ranger list that are concentration would not be overly broken without requiring concentration on the part of a ranger (the slower progression of both spell slots and access to higher levels of spell for the most part balances out the effects). Concentration is a mechanic there to limit the power of the full casters, I could argue that the ranger might have been better serve as a preparation caster to embody the knacks require a bit of beforehand prep, but that ship has sailed. Pact style could have also been a better fit again giving more of a tricks of the trade kind of feel to the ranger spellcasting feature.
So to perhaps improve on how the ranger play feels/performs maybe add an addition bonus action available maybe at level 9, and at level 13 allow the ranger to concentrate on one additional ranger spell at the same time. That level 9 improvement now make all or the bonus heavy class feature no longer keep ranger players who choose the twf style not get a chance to use it.
Though I think addition spells that support twf or melee ranger in general, the way archery has an overwhelming presence among the spell list.
Many of the ranger issue people are listing are kind of linked to some of the base mechanics of the game (most of which are in place for balance, but seem to be extra restrictive to Ranger as noted before a class that seemed to get less development time than the rest within those subsystems), maybe post level 9 or so there could be the introduction of an additional concentration "slot" only usable for ranger spells (to combat the issue people have with concentration-less spells being poached by dips/magical secrets) and maybe the add an additional bonus action (probably with the caveat of adding once per turn to spells like swift quiver).
Can you please elaborate on this?
Across multiple threads and forum many of the complaint I see commonly with ranger is that the class is has it's action economy painfully depended on the bonus action along side many (32 of roughly 59) spells also use concentration, I could also see the general lack of consistently useful reaction outside of level 15 subclass abilities. 5e controls a lot of the power of magical effect by the only one concentration spell/caster. I would argue that many of the spells that are on the ranger list that are concentration would not be overly broken without requiring concentration on the part of a ranger (the slower progression of both spell slots and access to higher levels of spell for the most part balances out the effects). Concentration is a mechanic there to limit the power of the full casters, I could argue that the ranger might have been better serve as a preparation caster to embody the knacks require a bit of beforehand prep, but that ship has sailed. Pact style could have also been a better fit again giving more of a tricks of the trade kind of feel to the ranger spellcasting feature.
So to perhaps improve on how the ranger play feels/performs maybe add an addition bonus action available maybe at level 9, and at level 13 allow the ranger to concentrate on one additional ranger spell at the same time. That level 9 improvement now make all or the bonus heavy class feature no longer keep ranger players who choose the twf style not get a chance to use it.
Though I think addition spells that support twf or melee ranger in general, the way archery has an overwhelming presence among the spell list.
Also how many of those concentration spells also require your BA...I would assume a lot.
Rangers do suffer from action economy loss from that as well...its why hunters mark is fairly overrated.
You get attacked more than once per turn and you will likely drop concentration even with the standard 10 DC check.
I’d like to submit that a ranger’s damage output, damage mitigation, and overall battlefield contribution at and past level 9 is based on casting spells, and in particular, conjure animals. Even NOT conjuring 8 beasts puts a ranger’s damage output on par or way past other martials, even very optimized versions. And that is just damage output. I think a real issue for most players is a lack of being alright with relying on a spell for their combat contribution, over just shooting a bow and arrows. I don’t know if it doesn’t meet their thematic image or what. It seems many ranger players want to be an archer fighter or two-weapon fighter that can build a fire and pitch a tent too, but the 5E ranger doesn’t meet that for them, especially at levels 11+, because of the heavy druid-style conjuring/summoning function of the base class. Even the harshest DM implementation of conjure animals leaves the spell as “great”, and a typical DM implementation takes it up to “amazing”.
I know the one thing that Optimus and I (and many others) agree on is this spell (conjure animals, and even summon beast) is potent. I know many players don’t like that the class leans so heavily on a spell. One spell. But that has never bothered me, it’s just the way it is. I personally love the spell, so I’m super biased. For me, divine smite could be thought of the same way. So too sneak attack, action surge, rage, and hex+blast. It is baked into the ranger class, and can’t be easily avoided…successfully. I would yield that one of the few ways to avoid this spell reliance is the ever popular ranger/rogue multiclass which, as we all know, allows a “ranger” to play and continue to play past level 8, an outdoorsy skirmisher with a bow or short swords.
I’d like to submit that a ranger’s damage output, damage mitigation, and overall battlefield contribution at and past level 9 is based on casting spells, and in particular, conjure animals. Even NOT conjuring 8 beasts puts a ranger’s damage output on par or way past other martials, even very optimized versions. And that is just damage output. I think a real issue for most players is a lack of being alright with relying on a spell for their combat contribution, over just shooting a bow and arrows. I don’t know if it doesn’t meet their thematic image or what. It seems many ranger players want to be an archer fighter or two-weapon fighter that can build a fire and pitch a tent too, but the 5E ranger doesn’t meet that for them, especially at levels 11+, because of the heavy druid-style conjuring/summoning function of the base class. Even the harshest DM implementation of conjure animals leaves the spell as “great”, and a typical DM implementation takes it up to “amazing”.
I know the one thing that Optimus and I (and many others) agree on is this spell (conjure animals, and even summon beast). I know many players don’t like that the class leans so heavily on a spell. One spell. But that has never bothered me, it’s just the way it is. I personally love the spell, so I’m super biased. For me, divine smite could be thought of the same way. So too sneak attack, action surge, rage, and hex+blast. It is baked into the ranger class, and can’t be easily avoided…successfully. I would yield that one of the few ways to avoid this spell reliance is the ever popular ranger/rogue multiclass which, as we all know, allows a “ranger” to play and continue to play past level 8, an outdoorsy skirmisher with a bow or short swords.
The thing about those other features is they work exactly when you want them to (sans hex as the same concentration issues exist but at least warlock gets options to deal with it now with Eldritch Mind).
Overall its not a huge deal but its one that does for sure make me hesitant to go in ranger beyond 9th level. I think getting the other class features (action surge, sneak attack, more expertise, Cleric spells) generally provides better for the ranger and for the party IMO. I also realize YMMV and that games are infinitely varied.
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
In my experience its not enough...ranged attacks, AoE, etc... exist enough I will be hit enough to drop concentration. Its mathematically very likely.
Also as a ranger I need DEX and WIS to get the most out of my character....dropping any ASI for a feat (beyond the Sharpshooter or CBE I am already taking) is basically a non-starter for me.
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
In my experience its not enough...ranged attacks, AoE, etc... exist enough I will be hit enough to drop concentration. Its mathematically very likely.
Also as a ranger I need DEX and WIS to get the most out of my character....dropping any ASI for a feat (beyond the Sharpshooter or CBE I am already taking) is basically a non-starter for me.
Right out of the gate you are holding the ranger to a standard that you aren’t for others. Paladins NEED strength and charisma. Barbarians NEED strength, dexterity, and constitution. All casters with concentration spells NEED to keep concentration. All of this is true across the board. One could argue that rangers need wisdom far less than paladins, clerics, and barbarians need their second and third stat. Also, many of the builds yourself and others promote need two or three feats to work optimally. Why not the ranger? That’s if you are doing sharpshooter, which is not a given.
Very few monsters deal over 20 points of damage on a single hit, and those that do are CR 18+ AND those are melee hits. Some monsters have AoE effects and spells that do over 20 points of damage, but at that point everyone is failing their concentration checks. And guess what then? Recast the spell.
I’d like to submit that a ranger’s damage output, damage mitigation, and overall battlefield contribution at and past level 9 is based on casting spells, and in particular, conjure animals. Even NOT conjuring 8 beasts puts a ranger’s damage output on par or way past other martials, even very optimized versions. And that is just damage output. I think a real issue for most players is a lack of being alright with relying on a spell for their combat contribution, over just shooting a bow and arrows. I don’t know if it doesn’t meet their thematic image or what. It seems many ranger players want to be an archer fighter or two-weapon fighter that can build a fire and pitch a tent too, but the 5E ranger doesn’t meet that for them, especially at levels 11+, because of the heavy druid-style conjuring/summoning function of the base class. Even the harshest DM implementation of conjure animals leaves the spell as “great”, and a typical DM implementation takes it up to “amazing”.
I know the one thing that Optimus and I (and many others) agree on is this spell (conjure animals, and even summon beast) is potent. I know many players don’t like that the class leans so heavily on a spell. One spell. But that has never bothered me, it’s just the way it is. I personally love the spell, so I’m super biased. For me, divine smite could be thought of the same way. So too sneak attack, action surge, rage, and hex+blast. It is baked into the ranger class, and can’t be easily avoided…successfully. I would yield that one of the few ways to avoid this spell reliance is the ever popular ranger/rogue multiclass which, as we all know, allows a “ranger” to play and continue to play past level 8, an outdoorsy skirmisher with a bow or short swords.
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
That seems to make for a very narrow class fantasy and playstyle as the bow summoner is kind of niche at best and then basically makes most fighting style features a trap. To be honest if the ranger was the to be the pet class they probably should have had features that point to that from level 1-3, not require what could be a dramatic change in approach to play nearly halfway through level progression (again if this is the case we can blame much of it on the lack of playtesting post level 11 or so). Though even with that playstyle being the intended design that would push ranger to consider a multi-class into druid for the addition spell slots (faster access to higher level slot to upcast from) and Circle of the Shepard (for it's summoner focused features)
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
In my experience its not enough...ranged attacks, AoE, etc... exist enough I will be hit enough to drop concentration. Its mathematically very likely.
Also as a ranger I need DEX and WIS to get the most out of my character....dropping any ASI for a feat (beyond the Sharpshooter or CBE I am already taking) is basically a non-starter for me.
Right out of the gate you are holding the ranger to a standard that you aren’t for others. Paladins NEED strength and charisma. Barbarians NEED strength, dexterity, and constitution. All casters with concentration spells NEED to keep concentration. All of this is true across the board. One could argue that rangers need wisdom far less than paladins, clerics, and barbarians need their second and third stat. Also, many of the builds yourself and others promote need two or three feats to work optimally. Why not the ranger? That’s if you are doing sharpshooter, which is not a given.
Very few monsters deal over 20 points of damage on a single hit, and those that do are CR 18+ AND those are melee hits. Some monsters have AoE effects and spells that do over 20 points of damage, but at that point everyone is failing their concentration checks. And guess what then? Recast the spell.
Paladin get their aura feature that does has Charisma do double duty on their spell casting (as it effects DC and concentration checks) so that is not a high standard.
I’d like to submit that a ranger’s damage output, damage mitigation, and overall battlefield contribution at and past level 9 is based on casting spells, and in particular, conjure animals. Even NOT conjuring 8 beasts puts a ranger’s damage output on par or way past other martials, even very optimized versions. And that is just damage output. I think a real issue for most players is a lack of being alright with relying on a spell for their combat contribution, over just shooting a bow and arrows. I don’t know if it doesn’t meet their thematic image or what. It seems many ranger players want to be an archer fighter or two-weapon fighter that can build a fire and pitch a tent too, but the 5E ranger doesn’t meet that for them, especially at levels 11+, because of the heavy druid-style conjuring/summoning function of the base class. Even the harshest DM implementation of conjure animals leaves the spell as “great”, and a typical DM implementation takes it up to “amazing”.
I know the one thing that Optimus and I (and many others) agree on is this spell (conjure animals, and even summon beast) is potent. I know many players don’t like that the class leans so heavily on a spell. One spell. But that has never bothered me, it’s just the way it is. I personally love the spell, so I’m super biased. For me, divine smite could be thought of the same way. So too sneak attack, action surge, rage, and hex+blast. It is baked into the ranger class, and can’t be easily avoided…successfully. I would yield that one of the few ways to avoid this spell reliance is the ever popular ranger/rogue multiclass which, as we all know, allows a “ranger” to play and continue to play past level 8, an outdoorsy skirmisher with a bow or short swords.
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
That seems to make for a very narrow class fantasy and playstyle as the bow summoner is kind of niche at best and then basically makes most fighting style features a trap. To be honest if the ranger was the to be the pet class they probably should have had features that point to that from level 1-3, not require what could be a dramatic change in approach to play nearly halfway through level progression (again if this is the case we can blame much of it on the lack of playtesting post level 11 or so). Though even with that playstyle being the intended design that would push ranger to consider a multi-class into druid for the addition spell slots (faster access to higher level slot to upcast from) and Circle of the Shepard (for it's summoner focused features)
Those multiclasses are are good options. Many things blend well with the rangers. However, multiclassing is an optional rule. So when used its good for rangers, and when not used they do great.
A narrow class fantasy? Fighting styles are a trap? Levels 1-3? How is this any different than a paladin needing to smite to fight? A ranger is a very capable martial from levels 2-10, dealing some of the highest damage among the martial classes, constantly. They keep up after level 10, and conjure animals just puts them over the top. Although not a "pet class" They do draw their style and power from nature akin to a druid, and if you can't see that as a thematic and mechanical element to the class than that is more of a player issue. Also, pet class? In the handbook they were literally the only class with a "pet" option.
If anything, you two are only strengthening my opinion on player perception versus mechanical design.
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
In my experience its not enough...ranged attacks, AoE, etc... exist enough I will be hit enough to drop concentration. Its mathematically very likely.
Also as a ranger I need DEX and WIS to get the most out of my character....dropping any ASI for a feat (beyond the Sharpshooter or CBE I am already taking) is basically a non-starter for me.
Right out of the gate you are holding the ranger to a standard that you aren’t for others. Paladins NEED strength and charisma. Barbarians NEED strength, dexterity, and constitution. All casters with concentration spells NEED to keep concentration. All of this is true across the board. One could argue that rangers need wisdom far less than paladins, clerics, and barbarians need their second and third stat. Also, many of the builds yourself and others promote need two or three feats to work optimally. Why not the ranger? That’s if you are doing sharpshooter, which is not a given.
Very few monsters deal over 20 points of damage on a single hit, and those that do are CR 18+ AND those are melee hits. Some monsters have AoE effects and spells that do over 20 points of damage, but at that point everyone is failing their concentration checks. And guess what then? Recast the spell.
Paladin get their aura feature that does has Charisma do double duty on their spell casting (as it effects DC and concentration checks) so that is not a high standard.
Also it's just true...
Dex fighters are the single most SAD build in the game.
A battlemaster uses Dex for AC, damage, accuracy, DC of maneuvers.
They don't need the ASI for stats... And they get subclass ways of increasing their damage via non-concentration based ways (precision die, samurai spirit, psi die etc) The same goes for Barb.
They can just increase STR and even then they can forgo that since they have an amazing built in way of increasing damage and to hit with reckless.
I’d like to submit that a ranger’s damage output, damage mitigation, and overall battlefield contribution at and past level 9 is based on casting spells, and in particular, conjure animals. Even NOT conjuring 8 beasts puts a ranger’s damage output on par or way past other martials, even very optimized versions. And that is just damage output. I think a real issue for most players is a lack of being alright with relying on a spell for their combat contribution, over just shooting a bow and arrows. I don’t know if it doesn’t meet their thematic image or what. It seems many ranger players want to be an archer fighter or two-weapon fighter that can build a fire and pitch a tent too, but the 5E ranger doesn’t meet that for them, especially at levels 11+, because of the heavy druid-style conjuring/summoning function of the base class. Even the harshest DM implementation of conjure animals leaves the spell as “great”, and a typical DM implementation takes it up to “amazing”.
I know the one thing that Optimus and I (and many others) agree on is this spell (conjure animals, and even summon beast) is potent. I know many players don’t like that the class leans so heavily on a spell. One spell. But that has never bothered me, it’s just the way it is. I personally love the spell, so I’m super biased. For me, divine smite could be thought of the same way. So too sneak attack, action surge, rage, and hex+blast. It is baked into the ranger class, and can’t be easily avoided…successfully. I would yield that one of the few ways to avoid this spell reliance is the ever popular ranger/rogue multiclass which, as we all know, allows a “ranger” to play and continue to play past level 8, an outdoorsy skirmisher with a bow or short swords.
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
That seems to make for a very narrow class fantasy and playstyle as the bow summoner is kind of niche at best and then basically makes most fighting style features a trap. To be honest if the ranger was the to be the pet class they probably should have had features that point to that from level 1-3, not require what could be a dramatic change in approach to play nearly halfway through level progression (again if this is the case we can blame much of it on the lack of playtesting post level 11 or so). Though even with that playstyle being the intended design that would push ranger to consider a multi-class into druid for the addition spell slots (faster access to higher level slot to upcast from) and Circle of the Shepard (for it's summoner focused features)
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
In my experience its not enough...ranged attacks, AoE, etc... exist enough I will be hit enough to drop concentration. Its mathematically very likely.
Also as a ranger I need DEX and WIS to get the most out of my character....dropping any ASI for a feat (beyond the Sharpshooter or CBE I am already taking) is basically a non-starter for me.
Right out of the gate you are holding the ranger to a standard that you aren’t for others. Paladins NEED strength and charisma. Barbarians NEED strength, dexterity, and constitution. All casters with concentration spells NEED to keep concentration. All of this is true across the board. One could argue that rangers need wisdom far less than paladins, clerics, and barbarians need their second and third stat. Also, many of the builds yourself and others promote need two or three feats to work optimally. Why not the ranger? That’s if you are doing sharpshooter, which is not a given.
Very few monsters deal over 20 points of damage on a single hit, and those that do are CR 18+ AND those are melee hits. Some monsters have AoE effects and spells that do over 20 points of damage, but at that point everyone is failing their concentration checks. And guess what then? Recast the spell.
Paladin get their aura feature that does has Charisma do double duty on their spell casting (as it effects DC and concentration checks) so that is not a high standard.
It is. Paladins need their charisma or loose more. There are builds of rangers that use a 10 for their wisdom score. It is not the same in any way shape or form. You are claiming false equivalencies.
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
In my experience its not enough...ranged attacks, AoE, etc... exist enough I will be hit enough to drop concentration. Its mathematically very likely.
Also as a ranger I need DEX and WIS to get the most out of my character....dropping any ASI for a feat (beyond the Sharpshooter or CBE I am already taking) is basically a non-starter for me.
Right out of the gate you are holding the ranger to a standard that you aren’t for others. Paladins NEED strength and charisma. Barbarians NEED strength, dexterity, and constitution. All casters with concentration spells NEED to keep concentration. All of this is true across the board. One could argue that rangers need wisdom far less than paladins, clerics, and barbarians need their second and third stat. Also, many of the builds yourself and others promote need two or three feats to work optimally. Why not the ranger? That’s if you are doing sharpshooter, which is not a given.
Very few monsters deal over 20 points of damage on a single hit, and those that do are CR 18+ AND those are melee hits. Some monsters have AoE effects and spells that do over 20 points of damage, but at that point everyone is failing their concentration checks. And guess what then? Recast the spell.
Paladin get their aura feature that does has Charisma do double duty on their spell casting (as it effects DC and concentration checks) so that is not a high standard.
Also it's just true...
Dex fighters are the single most SAD build in the game.
A battlemaster uses Dex for AC, damage, accuracy, DC of maneuvers.
They don't need the ASI for stats... And they get subclass ways of increasing their damage via non-concentration based ways (precision die, samurai spirit, psi die etc) The same goes for Barb.
They can just increase STR and even then they can forgo that since they have an amazing built in way of increasing damage and to hit with reckless.
The fact is ranger just doesn't get this benefit.
Fighters are designed that way. If you want to ignore dexterity and constitution for barbarians that's your deal.
Fighters are literally designed to be good at fighting. Yes. A dexterity fighter is great. That is why a dexterity ranger is great. Before level 14 they get one additional ASI than a ranger. And again, you are doubling down on how players want a ranger that isn't a ranger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let’s not forget that when a ranger is in Waterdeep proper they still have proficiency in nature and survival. Assuming they even took those. See, a ranger gains expertise in a favored terrain only IF they have the proficiency first. For me, the expertise is icing on the cake only. It’s the travel part of the ability that is the meat and potatoes of the ability. If you aren’t using overland travel in your game, hex map or whatever, the natural explorer probably seems like ribbon abilities with a couple of expertise that you only have some of the time. Moving on a hex grid is amazing with natural explorer. It saves lots of time and trouble. If we read the DMG for exploration DCs we’ll find that a decent ability score and proficiency is more than enough for just about anything, tracking, navigation, foraging, etc. Expertise is nice mathematically, but it’s overkill like 90% of the time. Only the toughest checks under the harshest conditions in the harshest terrains would require anything like expertise, and guess what? Those should be the terrains the ranger is taking.
No, I believe Envoy was asking about one of the rangers he played in a game being an assassin for king and country. What rangers apprentice series of books did I recommend now I’m lost 😳
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
At this point in video game D&D 5.5 world we should just give rangers expertise in nature and survival and walk away. That way everyone is equally upset.
Rosco, if the spells are in addition to, not as replacement for then I’m all for them.
Frank, that wouldn’t bother me at all either.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
must have been thinking of someone else. also i thought a later book was called kings assasin.
http://www.worldofjohnflanagan.com/rangers-apprentice/
Thanks for the link Rosco the series looks interesting if just a little long😳😁
anyone else have some suggestions, changes,comments?
Or are we finally about done after 24 pages?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Never done!
But to be honest these threads and ones like them will likely still appear until 2024 and we get the new PHB and see what they changed
And then they will get really moving discussing the new versions and what is good and bad in them.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Across multiple threads and forum many of the complaint I see commonly with ranger is that the class is has it's action economy painfully depended on the bonus action along side many (32 of roughly 59) spells also use concentration, I could also see the general lack of consistently useful reaction outside of level 15 subclass abilities. 5e controls a lot of the power of magical effect by the only one concentration spell/caster. I would argue that many of the spells that are on the ranger list that are concentration would not be overly broken without requiring concentration on the part of a ranger (the slower progression of both spell slots and access to higher levels of spell for the most part balances out the effects). Concentration is a mechanic there to limit the power of the full casters, I could argue that the ranger might have been better serve as a preparation caster to embody the knacks require a bit of beforehand prep, but that ship has sailed. Pact style could have also been a better fit again giving more of a tricks of the trade kind of feel to the ranger spellcasting feature.
So to perhaps improve on how the ranger play feels/performs maybe add an addition bonus action available maybe at level 9, and at level 13 allow the ranger to concentrate on one additional ranger spell at the same time. That level 9 improvement now make all or the bonus heavy class feature no longer keep ranger players who choose the twf style not get a chance to use it.
Though I think addition spells that support twf or melee ranger in general, the way archery has an overwhelming presence among the spell list.
Also how many of those concentration spells also require your BA...I would assume a lot.
Rangers do suffer from action economy loss from that as well...its why hunters mark is fairly overrated.
You get attacked more than once per turn and you will likely drop concentration even with the standard 10 DC check.
I’d like to submit that a ranger’s damage output, damage mitigation, and overall battlefield contribution at and past level 9 is based on casting spells, and in particular, conjure animals. Even NOT conjuring 8 beasts puts a ranger’s damage output on par or way past other martials, even very optimized versions. And that is just damage output. I think a real issue for most players is a lack of being alright with relying on a spell for their combat contribution, over just shooting a bow and arrows. I don’t know if it doesn’t meet their thematic image or what. It seems many ranger players want to be an archer fighter or two-weapon fighter that can build a fire and pitch a tent too, but the 5E ranger doesn’t meet that for them, especially at levels 11+, because of the heavy druid-style conjuring/summoning function of the base class. Even the harshest DM implementation of conjure animals leaves the spell as “great”, and a typical DM implementation takes it up to “amazing”.
I know the one thing that Optimus and I (and many others) agree on is this spell (conjure animals, and even summon beast) is potent. I know many players don’t like that the class leans so heavily on a spell. One spell. But that has never bothered me, it’s just the way it is. I personally love the spell, so I’m super biased. For me, divine smite could be thought of the same way. So too sneak attack, action surge, rage, and hex+blast. It is baked into the ranger class, and can’t be easily avoided…successfully. I would yield that one of the few ways to avoid this spell reliance is the ever popular ranger/rogue multiclass which, as we all know, allows a “ranger” to play and continue to play past level 8, an outdoorsy skirmisher with a bow or short swords.
The thing about those other features is they work exactly when you want them to (sans hex as the same concentration issues exist but at least warlock gets options to deal with it now with Eldritch Mind).
Overall its not a huge deal but its one that does for sure make me hesitant to go in ranger beyond 9th level. I think getting the other class features (action surge, sneak attack, more expertise, Cleric spells) generally provides better for the ranger and for the party IMO. I also realize YMMV and that games are infinitely varied.
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
In my experience its not enough...ranged attacks, AoE, etc... exist enough I will be hit enough to drop concentration. Its mathematically very likely.
Also as a ranger I need DEX and WIS to get the most out of my character....dropping any ASI for a feat (beyond the Sharpshooter or CBE I am already taking) is basically a non-starter for me.
Right out of the gate you are holding the ranger to a standard that you aren’t for others. Paladins NEED strength and charisma. Barbarians NEED strength, dexterity, and constitution. All casters with concentration spells NEED to keep concentration. All of this is true across the board. One could argue that rangers need wisdom far less than paladins, clerics, and barbarians need their second and third stat. Also, many of the builds yourself and others promote need two or three feats to work optimally. Why not the ranger? That’s if you are doing sharpshooter, which is not a given.
Very few monsters deal over 20 points of damage on a single hit, and those that do are CR 18+ AND those are melee hits. Some monsters have AoE effects and spells that do over 20 points of damage, but at that point everyone is failing their concentration checks. And guess what then? Recast the spell.
That seems to make for a very narrow class fantasy and playstyle as the bow summoner is kind of niche at best and then basically makes most fighting style features a trap. To be honest if the ranger was the to be the pet class they probably should have had features that point to that from level 1-3, not require what could be a dramatic change in approach to play nearly halfway through level progression (again if this is the case we can blame much of it on the lack of playtesting post level 11 or so). Though even with that playstyle being the intended design that would push ranger to consider a multi-class into druid for the addition spell slots (faster access to higher level slot to upcast from) and Circle of the Shepard (for it's summoner focused features)
Paladin get their aura feature that does has Charisma do double duty on their spell casting (as it effects DC and concentration checks) so that is not a high standard.
Those multiclasses are are good options. Many things blend well with the rangers. However, multiclassing is an optional rule. So when used its good for rangers, and when not used they do great.
A narrow class fantasy? Fighting styles are a trap? Levels 1-3? How is this any different than a paladin needing to smite to fight? A ranger is a very capable martial from levels 2-10, dealing some of the highest damage among the martial classes, constantly. They keep up after level 10, and conjure animals just puts them over the top. Although not a "pet class" They do draw their style and power from nature akin to a druid, and if you can't see that as a thematic and mechanical element to the class than that is more of a player issue. Also, pet class? In the handbook they were literally the only class with a "pet" option.
If anything, you two are only strengthening my opinion on player perception versus mechanical design.
Also it's just true...
Dex fighters are the single most SAD build in the game.
A battlemaster uses Dex for AC, damage, accuracy, DC of maneuvers.
They don't need the ASI for stats... And they get subclass ways of increasing their damage via non-concentration based ways (precision die, samurai spirit, psi die etc) The same goes for Barb.
They can just increase STR and even then they can forgo that since they have an amazing built in way of increasing damage and to hit with reckless.
The fact is ranger just doesn't get this benefit.
It is. Paladins need their charisma or loose more. There are builds of rangers that use a 10 for their wisdom score. It is not the same in any way shape or form. You are claiming false equivalencies.
Fighters are designed that way. If you want to ignore dexterity and constitution for barbarians that's your deal.
Fighters are literally designed to be good at fighting. Yes. A dexterity fighter is great. That is why a dexterity ranger is great. Before level 14 they get one additional ASI than a ranger. And again, you are doubling down on how players want a ranger that isn't a ranger.